TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deduction U/s. 10B on the unit established in SEZ. In the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction U/s. 10B on the reason that in earlier years, the deduction claimed U/s. 10B was not allowed. There was no discussion about the eligibility or otherwise of assessee's claim during the year. The only reason for disallowance is that the decisions of the CIT(A) in AYs. 2006-07 to 2009-10 are not accepted by the department and further appeals were filed before the ITAT and to maintain consistency, the claim was disallowed. In addition to the above, the AO also disallowed an amount of Rs. 2,55,34,208/- being 25% of expenditure on earth development expenses taking into account the non-verifiable nature of the expendit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dered the submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record as well as the orders of the revenue authorities. The fact that assessee is an approved 100% EOU has not been controverted by the department at any stage. Thus, assessee satisfies the primary condition for availing exemption u/s 10B. From the assessment order, it is clear that the AO has denied deduction u/s 10B basically for the following reasons. 1) Assessee during the search proceeding had voluntarily admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 1817.05 lakhs without claiming deduction u/s 10B. 2) assessee has not claimed deduction u/s 10B for ten consecutive assessment years beginning from AY 2006-07 and 3) assessee is not engaged in any manufacturing or production activity.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orm as found under the earth. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT Vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. (supra) had an occasion to examine the import of the term 'manufacture or produce' while considering the issue as to whether plant installed for extracting mining and processing iron ore would qualify for investment allowance held as under: "9. The reasoning given by the High Court, in the decisions noted by us earlier, is, in our opinion, unimpeachable. This Court had, as early as in 1961, in Chrestian Mica Industries Ltd. vs. State of Bihar (1961) 12 STC 150 (SC), defined the word "production", albeit, in connection with the Bihar Sales-tax Act, 1947. The definition was adopted from the meaning ascribed to the word in the Oxford English Diction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rrectly submitted that the other provisions of the Act, particularly s. 33(1)(b)(B) r/w item No. 3 of the Fifth Schedule to the Act, would show that mining of ore is treated as "production". Sec. 35E also speaks of production in the context of mining activity. The language of these sections is similar to the language of s. 32A(2). There is no reason for us to assume that the word "production" was used in a different sense in s. 32A. We are, therefore, of the opinion that extraction and processing of iron ore amounts to "production" within the meaning of the word in s. 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Act and, consequently, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of s. 32A(1) of the Act. The question whether the High Court was correct in holding that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....So far as the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional high Court in case of Deccan Cements Vs. CIT (supra) is concerned, there the issue before the Hon'ble High court was claim of deduction u/s 80HH in respect of the cement manufacturing activity. The Hon'ble High court, therefore, held that cement manufacturing activity and mining of lime stone are two different and distinctive activities, hence, mining of lime stone cannot be considered as part of manufacturing of cement. Further, sub-section (10) of section 80HH specifically excludes mining activities from availing deduction. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court keeping in view the aforesaid statutory provision held that assessee is not entitled for benefit u/s 80HH. Whereas, there is no suc....